6 ms·

> The model suggested that ice from Antarctica alone — before any additions from Greenland, mountain glaciers or thermal expansion — could raise the seas by mor

> The model suggested that ice from Antarctica alone — before any additions from Greenland, mountain glaciers or thermal expansion — could raise the seas by more than a meter by 2100. > In a 2021 update that incorporated additional factors into the simulations, DeConto and colleagues revised that estimate sharply downward, projecting less than 40 centimeters of sea-level rise by the century’s end under high-emission scenarios. In essence, they have no idea.

throwway120385 1y ago
But they know that it is coming and we need to plan for it. 40 centimeters is still half a meter. If you filled my office with half a meter of water it would be between my butt and my ankle where I'm sitting. There are a lot of berms that couldn't withstand king tides 40 centimeters higher, especially with storm swell factored in. A lot of seaside infrastructure where I live needs to be relocated even with a lower estimate.
Windchaser 1y ago
I'd think that "between 0.5 and 1 meters" is an idea. Like, we aren't worried about sea level dropping, and we aren't worried about +10m by 2100. This is still useful info, even if there's some uncertainty remaining.
- dingnuts 1y ago
  I like how you changed "less than .4 meters" into "between .5 and 1" That was some smooth propagandizing you just did, I wonder if anybody else noticed. Between less than .4 (0) and 1 (1) is a much bigger window than the one you invented wholesale in your reply. I think the grandparent might be right, and your willingness to bend the statistics when they are literally on the same page as your comment, along with others like you doing the same thing for decades, is the reason your side is losing and continues to lose the public's trust. If the problem is really so obvious and so serious you should not feel it necessary to exaggerate. So quit it.
  - EddieRingle 1y ago
    They're citing another section of the article rather than the cherry picked quotes they were responding to.
  - Windchaser 1y ago
    Yep, as someone else said, I'm quoting a different part of the article. Though: from experience in science, when someone says "less than 0.4" in this kind of context, you can expect they mean ">= 0.3". And if you want to be careful and rigorous about it, you can check the 2021 Nature research article being cited here, and verify this. This article puts the contribution of Antarctica to SLR by 2100 between [0.3, 1] under that emissions scenario. Which, again, is not "we have no idea". We're not seriously concerned about Antarctica picking up a significant amount of ice mass, nor are we seriously concerned about 10+m of SLR by 2100. Both of these would be significant if they were actual possibilities, so: when you say "we have no idea", you are not fairly representing the actual uncertainty that we have. We have some idea, just not as much as we'd like. ....as a side note, the jump from "hey, this guy isn't quoting the same thing as me" to "wow he's trying to propagandize us" is not a healthy jump. Assuming that someone's arguing in bad faith, rather than, say, quoting a different part of the article, is probably a key piece in the vaguely anti-science mindset that you have. It's gonna color every article you read, every discussion you have, and lead you to incorrect conclusions time and again. But I don't expect this argument to have any traction, either: the emotional responses that feed into villainization tend to be pretty deeply-wired and resistant to logic.
pureagave 1y ago
The models are always wrong. It's virtually impossible to model something with an impossible amount of unknown inputs. Even accurately measuring the Earth over time is a joke. Unfortunately the models are presented in pop science and mainstream culture as accurate or something that we should use to create public policy.
- dboreham 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - constantcrying 1y ago
    Lying about science is not helpful. The key driver behind climate change denial is science communication misrepresenting climate science. All climate science models are incredibly uncertain and making concrete predictions based on them has and will continue to make scientists look like idiots.
- user____name 1y ago
  What should we base public policy on instead?
  - billfor 1y ago
    Having less people .
- Windchaser 1y ago
  > It's virtually impossible to model something with an impossible amount of unknown inputs. Nah. We have a pretty good idea of what the main unknowns in climate are, and they have an associated uncertainty range. Yes, it's a lot of work to model such systems with a useful level of accuracy, but "a lot of work" is very far from "virtually impossible". ? If the climate was that unpredictable, then the Earth would be uninhabitable. (FWIW, I do computational modeling for work - not in climate, though - and you would not believe how much misinformation there is about modeling from conservatives)
constantcrying 1y ago
Obviously you get downvoted for this here, but you are absolutely correct. Climate science is one of the most speculative fields of science, which for political reasons is rarely admitted towards the general public. The climate in 100 years is incredibly uncertain. The general story of rising sea levels due to increased temperatures due to increased carbon in the atmosphere is of course very plausible. But it is just one of large number of effects at play and one of many ways the climate is changing. (Which isn't to say that the sum of these effects can not have server negative consequences) Science communication around climate change has always been built around the obvious falsehood that climate models make good predictions, especially when it comes to long term trends. Instead of honestly communicating the actual state of science, which is that while specific predictions are hard, negative consequences of human intervention in the earths atmosphere likely will have sever negative consequences if they aren't mitigated, science communication has focused in on stories about "in X years Y will happen". When Y inevitably did not happen that was (and it is hard to blame people for this) taken es evidence that no negative consequences can be expected. Edit: It is pretty surprising how anti science the crowd here is. These are just basic truths about he state of the science. Accurate climate models do not exist, if you disagree I suppose you should read a bit into the literature.
- margalabargala 1y ago
  This is completely wrong and I'm frankly not sure how you came to this conclusion from the parent comment's data. The uncertainty is "we do not know whether the amount of sea level rise due to human GHG emissions will be closer to 40cm, or closer to 100cm 75 years from now". Science communication regarding this has generally always expressed uncertainty. Right wing entertainment masquerading as news frequently portrays it otherwise, but that's easy to do when unencumbered by a connection to reality. Don't confuse what is most profitable to say, with what is most correct to say.
  - constantcrying 1y ago
    [flagged]

throwway120385 1y ago

But they know that it is coming and we need to plan for it. 40 centimeters is still half a meter. If you filled my office with half a meter of water it would be between my butt and my ankle where I'm sitting. There are a lot of berms that couldn't withstand king tides 40 centimeters higher, especially with storm swell factored in. A lot of seaside infrastructure where I live needs to be relocated even with a lower estimate.

Windchaser 1y ago

I'd think that "between 0.5 and 1 meters" is an idea. Like, we aren't worried about sea level dropping, and we aren't worried about +10m by 2100. This is still useful info, even if there's some uncertainty remaining.

dingnuts 1y ago
I like how you changed "less than .4 meters" into "between .5 and 1" That was some smooth propagandizing you just did, I wonder if anybody else noticed. Between less than .4 (0) and 1 (1) is a much bigger window than the one you invented wholesale in your reply. I think the grandparent might be right, and your willingness to bend the statistics when they are literally on the same page as your comment, along with others like you doing the same thing for decades, is the reason your side is losing and continues to lose the public's trust. If the problem is really so obvious and so serious you should not feel it necessary to exaggerate. So quit it.
- EddieRingle 1y ago
  They're citing another section of the article rather than the cherry picked quotes they were responding to.
- Windchaser 1y ago
  Yep, as someone else said, I'm quoting a different part of the article. Though: from experience in science, when someone says "less than 0.4" in this kind of context, you can expect they mean ">= 0.3". And if you want to be careful and rigorous about it, you can check the 2021 Nature research article being cited here, and verify this. This article puts the contribution of Antarctica to SLR by 2100 between [0.3, 1] under that emissions scenario. Which, again, is not "we have no idea". We're not seriously concerned about Antarctica picking up a significant amount of ice mass, nor are we seriously concerned about 10+m of SLR by 2100. Both of these would be significant if they were actual possibilities, so: when you say "we have no idea", you are not fairly representing the actual uncertainty that we have. We have some idea, just not as much as we'd like. ....as a side note, the jump from "hey, this guy isn't quoting the same thing as me" to "wow he's trying to propagandize us" is not a healthy jump. Assuming that someone's arguing in bad faith, rather than, say, quoting a different part of the article, is probably a key piece in the vaguely anti-science mindset that you have. It's gonna color every article you read, every discussion you have, and lead you to incorrect conclusions time and again. But I don't expect this argument to have any traction, either: the emotional responses that feed into villainization tend to be pretty deeply-wired and resistant to logic.

pureagave 1y ago

The models are always wrong. It's virtually impossible to model something with an impossible amount of unknown inputs. Even accurately measuring the Earth over time is a joke. Unfortunately the models are presented in pop science and mainstream culture as accurate or something that we should use to create public policy.

dboreham 1y ago
[flagged]
- constantcrying 1y ago
  Lying about science is not helpful. The key driver behind climate change denial is science communication misrepresenting climate science. All climate science models are incredibly uncertain and making concrete predictions based on them has and will continue to make scientists look like idiots.
user____name 1y ago
What should we base public policy on instead?
- billfor 1y ago
  Having less people .
Windchaser 1y ago
> It's virtually impossible to model something with an impossible amount of unknown inputs. Nah. We have a pretty good idea of what the main unknowns in climate are, and they have an associated uncertainty range. Yes, it's a lot of work to model such systems with a useful level of accuracy, but "a lot of work" is very far from "virtually impossible". ? If the climate was that unpredictable, then the Earth would be uninhabitable. (FWIW, I do computational modeling for work - not in climate, though - and you would not believe how much misinformation there is about modeling from conservatives)

constantcrying 1y ago

Obviously you get downvoted for this here, but you are absolutely correct. Climate science is one of the most speculative fields of science, which for political reasons is rarely admitted towards the general public. The climate in 100 years is incredibly uncertain. The general story of rising sea levels due to increased temperatures due to increased carbon in the atmosphere is of course very plausible. But it is just one of large number of effects at play and one of many ways the climate is changing. (Which isn't to say that the sum of these effects can not have server negative consequences) Science communication around climate change has always been built around the obvious falsehood that climate models make good predictions, especially when it comes to long term trends. Instead of honestly communicating the actual state of science, which is that while specific predictions are hard, negative consequences of human intervention in the earths atmosphere likely will have sever negative consequences if they aren't mitigated, science communication has focused in on stories about "in X years Y will happen". When Y inevitably did not happen that was (and it is hard to blame people for this) taken es evidence that no negative consequences can be expected. Edit: It is pretty surprising how anti science the crowd here is. These are just basic truths about he state of the science. Accurate climate models do not exist, if you disagree I suppose you should read a bit into the literature.

margalabargala 1y ago
This is completely wrong and I'm frankly not sure how you came to this conclusion from the parent comment's data. The uncertainty is "we do not know whether the amount of sea level rise due to human GHG emissions will be closer to 40cm, or closer to 100cm 75 years from now". Science communication regarding this has generally always expressed uncertainty. Right wing entertainment masquerading as news frequently portrays it otherwise, but that's easy to do when unencumbered by a connection to reality. Don't confuse what is most profitable to say, with what is most correct to say.
- constantcrying 1y ago
  [flagged]